Change of address – is a new claim needed

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #38850
    Kully Bains

    I have been reading other threads on change of address and have become even more confused !
    we have a claimant who is a continous rent liablity and is moving within the LA from one Council property to the other.
    The tenancy at address A ended 17/07/2011
    and tenancy at address B started 18/07/2011.
    However tenant did not move into the new address until 20/07/2011, the ycontinued to live at address A until teh date of move on 20/07/2011.
    For HB puposes , i cant continue payment at previous address as there was no rent liablity after the 18/07/2011, therefore i think the existing claim must end from 18/07/2011.
    Then as claimant did not move into the new address until the 20/07/2011, i cannot award benefit at new address until 20/07/2011.
    technically is a new claim needed ? are other authorities still following advice in A8/2006?


    I think that a new claim is needed, although this could be just a written statement. I guess you’ll probably need a backdate request also, but if properly constructed, you’d be able to award this.

    For CTB, just a COC.

    Kevin D

    I *think* that you can get away without the need for a new claim – JUST.

    Assuming HB is going to be payable for “week 1” at the new address, it is open to argument that HB is continuous, despite the occupancy “gap”. If I was representing the clmt, I’d argue as follows:


    Even if the LA decides that any liability for 18th/19th is ineligible for HB, the clmt is still entitled to HB for the WHOLE week because HBR 80 doesn’t end benefit; it merely acts as a calculating mechanism for an apportioned amount of rent for which HB can be paid FOR THE WHOLE WEEK. Except where expressly provided, HB is a weekly benefit, payable for full weeks and, on that basis, HB is continuous in this case because there are no benefit weeks where there is no entitlement. None of the provisions that could end HB mid-week apply in this case.


    As it happens, it may well be arguable that in these specific circs, rent for 18th / 19th may well be eligible for HB in any case. However, I’ve not analysed that aspect and I’m out of gas….

    Kully Bains

    Can i just check, if a change of address form is completed , and in cases like above, we find that a new claim is needed, is there anything wrong in treating the change of address as a continous intention to claim, and if all other details are already known, is there anything wrong with not insisting a customer completes a new application form ?

    Andy Thurman


    Couple of observations –
    1. IF a new claim is required, a COA form will be more than sufficient for the “case or class of cases” 😉
    2. As there is *some* entitlement in the week of the move (however 18/19 are treated), I don’t believe a new claim is needed.
    3. Housing rents have always/often “traditionally” been set up in whole Monday to Sunday weeks – possibly/probably to align with previous rules in HB. I would suggest that the ‘true’ picture here should be an ongoing award picking up the new rent from 18th on the basis that for 18th/19th, although the rent is ‘technically’ for the new address by virtue of the rent account details, it is essentially a payment in respect of the old address i.e. an implicit agreement that the first 2 days on the new rent account are for the continued occupancy of the old one. If this wasn’t the case, you would expect that a charge would be made for remaining in the old property after the tenancy had officially been ended.


    See previous thread on this:

    Change of address, gap in liability

    Peter Barker’s argument is, for me, persuasive – i.e. no new claim required.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.